[From the Iowa Historical Record for January, 1894.] 


. SOME FRAGMENTS 

OF 

IOWA HISTORY, 


GATHERED FROM THE 



RECORDS OF CONGRESS, 


BY 

ELIZABETH H. AVERY, 

* \ 1 

Post-Graduate Student in Iowa College, 1893, 

HAMPTON, IOWA. 


>T 




IOWA CITY, IOWA. 

H. L. Turoop & Co., Printers. 
1894. 















[From the Iowa Historical Record for January, 1894.] 


SOME FRAGMENTS OF IOWA HISTORY, GATH¬ 
ERED FROM THE RECORDS OF CONGRESS. 

BY ELIZABETH H. AVERY, POST-GRADUATE STUDENT IN IOWA 
COLLEGE, 1893, HAMPTON, IOWA. 

HE deplorable fact that much of the original mate¬ 
rial for the study of Iowa history, especially in the 
earlier years, has been allowed to disappear, 
makes a careful investigation of everything ac¬ 
cessible doubly important. The most readily available sources 
of information are probably the Congressional records, and 
from them the facts presented in this paper are almost ex¬ 
clusively drawn. It will be at once apparent, therefore, that 
a full, symmetrical presentation has not been attempted. 
At almost every step the work needs to be supplemented with 
facts drawn from other sources. The discussion in Congress 
as to granting the desired boundaries to the State is no more 
valuable than the discussion in Iowa on the same subject. 
Much light would perhaps be thrown on the action of Con¬ 
gress, if we could know all the reasons on which the people 
of the would-be state grounded their demand for the Missouri 
as their western boundarv- 

Again, the opinions of Iowa Senators expressed in Congress 
would have more (or less) weight, if we could know to what 
extent they were endorsed by their constituents. Whether 
material anywhere exists for the elucidation of some of these 
points is doubtful. If it does, it is much to be desired that it 
should be brought to light and a careful study of it be made. 

At least in the absence of much that would be worth know- 

* 

ing, it is worth while to learn all that we may. 



(o-ZZ&O 











2 


Iowa Historical Record. 


The references in this paper unless otherwise specified, are 
to the Congressional Globe and its successor the Record , for 
the specified sessions. 

In the autumn of 1844 a Constitutional Convention met at 
Iowa City and framed a constitution which was speedily submit¬ 
ted to Congress together with a memorial, setting forth that 
the Territory had attained a population of more than 80,000, 
and expressing their expectation of an e^rly admission under 
the guarantees of the treaty with France. The enabling act 
passed by Congress March 3, 1845, made certain changes in 
the boundaries and rejected some of the propositions of the 
ordinance appended to the Constitution. The people, how¬ 
ever, refused to ratify the Constitution as thus amended, but the 
work of the second convention which met in 1846 was accept¬ 
ed by Congress and ratified by the people. This bare out¬ 
line of the steps by which Iowa became a state, is familiar to 
every one, being found in all the county histories, but the 
story of the boundary disputes preceding her admission, 
though much more interesting, is less generally known. 

The boundaries demanded for the State in the Constitution 
of 1844 were substantially those finally granted, except that 
from the mouth of the Sioux the northern boundary line was 
to run north-east to about the present location of Mankato, 
Minn., thence along the Minnesota River—then called St. 
Peter’s—to the Mississippi River. 

(See U. S. Ex. Doc., 1844, Vol. 4, Doc. 5.) 

A large slice of what is now Minnesota would thus have 
been included in the State, while a small corner of North¬ 
western Iowa would have been left out in the cold. 

It at once appeared that there was decided opposition in 
Congress to granting the desired boundaries on the south, 
west, and north. The opposition to the southern boundary 
came from Missouri. As her claim dates back many years, 
it may be well to consider it before taking up the discussion 
in Congress. 

The Constitution of the State of Missouri defined her west- 



Some Fragments of Iowa History. 


3 


ern and northern boundaries as follows: “ A meridian line 
passing through the middle of the mouth of the Kansas 
River, where that river empties into the Missouri * * * 

to the intersection of the parallel of latitude which passes 
through the rapids of the river Des Moines, making the said 
line correspond with the Indian boundary line, thence east 
from the last point of intersection along said parallel of lati¬ 
tude to the middle of the channel of the main fork of the 
river Des Moines, etc.” 

The Indian boundary line was one run in 1816 by John C. 
Sullivan to settle the boundaries of lands ceded to the 
United States by the Osage Indians, and is frequently referred 
to as “ Sullivan’s line.” The description was doubtless sup¬ 
posed to be definite at the time, but the phrase “ the rapids 
of the river Des Moines ” proved sufficiently ambiguous to be 
the pretext for a long and angry dispute between Missouri and 
Iowa. The whole controversy, when stripped of all extraneous 
matter, seems to turn almost entirely on the question whether 
the framers of the constitution intended to designate certain 
rapids in the Mississippi River opposite the mouth of the 
Des Moines, which the early French settlers called “ Les rap- 
ides de la riviere Des Moines ” literally translated—“ The 
rapids of the river Des Moines,” or whether they meant 
rapids in the Des Moines, which as some claimed were to be 
found at the great bend near where Keosauqua now stands. 

In 1831 Missouri added to the memorial regarding annexa¬ 
tion of territory on her western border the request that Con¬ 
gress take measures for settling her northern boundary line, 
saying, it “ is vague and indefinite,” and “ we are not informed 
of the precise location of the rapids of the river Des Moines.” 

(See Ex. Doc. 1830-31, Vol. 2, No. 71.) 

Gov. Miller, who was a member of the Constitutional Con¬ 
vention, vetoed the memorial on the ground that he was confi¬ 
dent the northern boundary was run and marked by Sullivan, 
though the record could not then be found. 

(Reports of U. S. Com. 1841-2, Vol. 4, No. 791.) 


4 


Iowa Historical Record. 


The memorial was passed over his veto, but Congress took 
no action. In 1837 Joseph C. Brown under the authority of the 
State Legislature of Missouri made a survey. Meantime the 
Territory of Wisconsin had been organized and viewed with 
alarm the prospect that Brown’s line, considerably farther north 
than Sullivan’s, might be adopted as the boundary and thus 
encroach upon her limits. Accordingly her delegate in Con¬ 
gress was instructed to use his best exertions to secure the 
appointment of commissioners to settle the boundary. The 
claim was put forth in her Legislature that Missouri had 
accepted the old Indian boundary line without complaint till 
certain persons interested in the half-breed reservation be¬ 
tween the Des Moines and Mississippi hoping to extend their 
territory, asserted that the rapids were in the Des Moines 
farther north than those in the Mississippi; and that then 
Missouri took up the claim and provided for the survey as 
stated above. 

Congress authorized the appointment of commissioners, but 
by that time it had ceased to be any concern of Wisconsin, 
for the part of her territory west of the Mississippi had been 
organized as the Territory of Iowa. 

The U. S. Commissioner, Albert Miller Lea, made a long 
report accompanied by several important documents. 
fEx. Doc., 1838-9, Vol. 10, No. 128.) 

From this report it appears that Sullivan’s line, beginning in 
the Missouri River opposite the mouth of the Kansas ran 
one hundred miles north then —according to the Jield-notes — 
due east one hundred and fifty and one-half miles to the Des 
Moines River, but for want of proper corrections of the 
needle, its course was really, as shown by later surveys, north 
of east by about 2)4°. Lea discussed four possible lines. 

First—Sullivan’s line, which has in its favor the almost 
uniform reference to the point one hundred miles north of the 
mouth of the Kansas River as the northwest corner of Mis¬ 
souri. On the other hand it is an oblique line and the law calls 
for a parallel of latitude. Moreover it does not pass through 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. 5 

any rapids of the Des Moines, and hence is not a legal line 
though from its long use as such, it might be proper to estab¬ 
lish it by legislation. 

Second—The parallel of latitude passing through the old 
northwest corner. It is not known whether this line passes 
through any rapids. 

Third—The parallel passing through the Des Moines rap¬ 
ids in the Mississippi. The argument for this is that the 
rapids are the point of paramount importance in determining 
the boundary as established by the constitution and that by 
general notoriety the rapids in the Mississippi were known by 
the name given in the description. 

Fourth—The parallel passing through the rapids in the 
Des Moines near the Great Bend. This was the line sur¬ 
veyed by Browm in 1837. In favor of this line he refers to 
letters of John Scott and Wm. Milburn, stating their recollec¬ 
tions that these rapids were the ones intended by the framers 
of the State Constitution. 

Lea’s conclusion is, that the first line is equitable but not 
legal, the second line is neither equitable nor legal, and that 
the third and fourth both fulfill the conditions of the law. 

Meantime the Legislature of Missouri had declared Brown’s 
line the northern boundary of the State, and the authorities 
of Clark county undertook to levy taxes in the adjacent 
county of Van Buren, Iowa. These attempts were resisted, 
proclamations were issued, and troops called out on both 
sides, but no blood was shed and the militia was soon dis¬ 
banded. 

(Ex. Doc. 1841-2, Vol. 3, Doc. 141.) 

Subsequent attempts at legislation accomplished nothing, 
and when Iowa framed her constitution in 1844 she demanded 
Sullivan’s line for her southern boundary. Missouri at once 
protested in a long memorial. 

(Ex. Doc. 1845-6, Vol. 10, No. 104.) 

Congress finally left the matter to the decision of the Su¬ 
preme Court. The unanimous opinion of the judges was in 


6 


Iowa Historical Record. 


favor of the old Indian line, and they appointed commission¬ 
ers by whom the line was run and marked with iron pillars at 
intervals of ten miles. The final settlement of the matter 
was at the December term, 1850, long after the admission of 
the State. 

(Howard’s Reports, Vols. 7, p. 660 & 10, p. 1.) 

Coming back now to the time when Iowa applied for ad¬ 
mission under the constitution of ’44, we find the House 
Committee on Territories reported a bill for her admission 
with the desired boundaries, on the ground as stated by Mr. 
Brown, of Tennessee, the chairman of the committee, that 
“ the people of Iowa, were there, had settled the country, and 
their voice should be listened to in the matter.” 

(Globe, Vol. 14, p. 269.) 

Mr. Duncan, of Ohio, moved an amendment which, if 
adopted, would have made the boundary thirty to fifty miles 
farther north than it is at present, but would have reduced 
the width of the State by more than one-third. Over this 
amendment the controversy began. The chief speaker in 
its favor was Mr. Vinton, of Ohio. 

(Globe, Vol. 14, App. p. 330, seq.) 

He spoke at some length of what he characterized as “ the 
unwise and mistaken policy ” which had prevailed in the 
formation of western states by which the valley of the Mis¬ 
sissippi had been deprived “ of its due share in the legislation 
of the country.” He thought the act limiting the number of 
states formed from the Northwest Territory to five a “ flagrant 
injustice,” in compensation for which a series of small states 
ought to be formed on the west bank of the Mississippi. He 
also argued at great length and very ably that in the long 
run the control of the government might be more safely en¬ 
trusted to the West than to any other hands. The main 
points of his argument were, that the West had no prejudices 
against either the North or the South, that the whole body of 
grain-growing states, slave-holding and non-slave-holding, 
had an intermediate position between the exclusive interests 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. 


7 


of the North and the South, and hence were deeply interest¬ 
ed in the prosperity of both: that the West had also a middle 
ground between the two social systems—the one based on 
free, and the other on slave labor; finally, and this is the point 
he labored most earnestly to impress, that in this region there 
was growing up a conservative power which would be strong 
enough “ to hush into submission the elements of dissension.” 
In the light of subsequent events one or two passages of his 
speech have an interest, not otherwise belonging to them, per¬ 
haps. 44 The people of the great valley will forever be con¬ 
servative whoever may be otherwise, not because of their 
superior patriotism, virtue, and love of country, but simply 
because their position forces them to be so.” 

Again— 44 If the attempt at separation be made at North or 
South—in Massachusetts or South Carolina—it will be put 
down by the hand of this great central power, impelled to 
action by an overruling necessity. It must put it down, or 
lose its own independence, and its people become hewers of 
wood and drawers of water for the people of the new empires 
at the North and the South.” 

His objection of course to the admission of new states of 
large area at the West was that, by that means that region 
would be deprived of a just share of power in the Senate. 

Mr. Belser, of Alabama, objected to some of Mr. Vinton’s 
statements as 44 designed to cater to the objections of those 
who were already sufficiently vindictive in their opposition to 
the South.” He also reminded him that the equal voice of 
each State in the Senate without regard to population, wealth 
or dimensions, was expressly contemplated by the framers of 
the constitution, and that it was in the House that the people 
were to be proportionately represented. Moreover he assert¬ 
ed that, 44 this thing, called the balance of power, had not 
made the profound impression at the South that seemed to be 
supposed.” 

(Globe, Vol. 14, App. p. 216.) 

Some further discussion took place, developing nothing 


8 


* Iowa Historical Record. 


particularly new however, and then the amendment of Mr. 
Duncan slightly altered in form was passed. 

The Senate debate was almost entirely in regard to Florida 
which was to be admitted with Iowa. In the course of it, 
Rufus Choate said that since the annexation of Texas condi¬ 
tions had changed; that he could cheerfully give his hand to 
Iowa but not to Florida. 

(Globe, Vol. 14, p. 379.) 

The bill however passed the Senate in the form in which it 
came from the House. After the rejection of the terms of 
admission by the people of Iowa, Mr. A. C. Dodge, the Ter¬ 
ritorial delegate, introduced a bill (Dec. iq, 1845,) to amend 
so much of the act as referred to the boundaries of Iowa. 
The principal debate on this bill took place June 8, 1846. 

(Globe Vol. 15, p. 938, seq.) 

Rockwell, of Massachusetts, Rathbun, of N. Y., and Vin¬ 
ton, of Ohio, were its most active opponents. Mr. Rathbun 
entreated the House to “ remember that one of the chief 
ingredients in our safety was to maintain a due proportion 
and balance between the power of the Northern and South¬ 
ern States. 

He objected to “ having territory formed into large states 
at the North and small ones at the South.” 

Mr. Vinton did not doubt that, if Congress would “ let the 
people of Iowa cut and carve for themselves, they would have 
their State extend to the mouth of the Columbia.” His 
speech was largely a repetition of the arguments he had used 
in the previous Congress, though he criticised Mr. Rathbun 
for representing it to be a question between the Northern and 
Southern States. 

It would be interesting to know in this connection on what 
grounds the people of Iowa, afterwards so ready to assist in 
preserving the Union, resisted the efforts of the Ohio gentle¬ 
man to use them in maintaining the balance of power. The 
political views of the Democratic majority in the Territory 
may have had something to do with it. But the commercial 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. 


9 


importance of the Missouri River was probably the most in¬ 
fluential factor in determining their action. The fact that 
they receded from the northern boundary at first proposed, 
but obstinately clung to the Missouri and the Sioux as their 
western boundary seems to indicate this. The speech of Mr. 
Dodge also points in the same direction. He was quite sar¬ 
castic in his reply to Mr. Vinton and Mr. Rathbun. To quote 
his language: “ It was most unfortunate for us, sir, that the 

bill for our admission came before this House when gentle¬ 
men from a certain section of the Union, however much they 
may attempt to deny the fact, were smarting—ay, almost 
agonizing—under the then recent annexation of Texas. In 
their phrensy to preserve what they regarded as the balance 
of political power between the slave and non-slave-holding 
states, they were prepared to do almost anything, to override 
the deliberately considered report of one of the most respect¬ 
able committees of the House, and to vote in favor of State 
lines, of the propriety and expediency of which they knew 
almost nothing.” 

In favor of the western boundary he said, “ Looking to a 
connection with the Pacific Coast and the Asiatic trade the 
boundary of the Missouri River is of the utmost importance 
to us, as it is to any system of internal improvements by 
which our Mississippi and Missouri towns are to be con¬ 
nected.” 

He also stated as a serious objection to the boundaries 
established by the previous Congress that the Des Moines, 
capable of being made navigable for several hundred miles, 
and passing through a country of unsurpassed fertility, already 
becoming densely inhabited, would thereby be cut in two. In 
concluding the address he admonished the House that “ if the 
amendment of the gentleman from Ohio should prevail they 
might as well pass a bill for our perpetual exclusion from the 
Union. Sir, the people of Iowa will never acquiesce in it.” 

The bill as finally passed accepted the boundaries proposed 
in the constitution of ’46, practically the same as those of ’44? 


io Iowa Historical Record. 

except on the North, where the line was 43 0 30' instead of 
the Minnesota River. 

Enough of the debate has been given, I think, to show that 
it was really one episode in the never-ceasing contest for the 
balance of power between the different sections of the Union. 

Some ten years later, the State Legislature memorialized 
Congress for the addition of the delta of land between the 
Missouri and Sioux Rivers and south of 43 0 30'. Although 
the Committee on Public Lands urged the passage of a bill 
making such addition it was never passed by the House. 

(House Jour. 1856.) 

The years following the admission of Iowa were years of 
“storm and stress.” Great questions of national policy, in¬ 
volving indeed the very life of the nation, were vigorously, at 
times angrily, discussed on the floor of Congress, and some 
of them were fought out on the battle-field. The war record 
of the State is elsewhere written, but her Congressional rec¬ 
ord, so far as I know, has never been gathered from the dusty 
volumes in which it is buried amidst a mass of other material. 
To indicate briefly, and if possible, with perfect fairness, the 
views of her Congressmen—and incidentally and by infer¬ 
ence, of her people, upon some of these great questions is 
all that can be attempted here. 

On the subject of slavery and the various compromise 
measures which were undertaken, Iowa Congressmen always 
spoke with no uncertain sound, albeit there was a remarkable 
change in the tone in the course of a few years. 

Speaking on the omnibus bill May 28, 1850, and claiming 
to represent the views of a majority of his constituents, Sen¬ 
ator Dodge professed to be opposed to “ slavery in the ab¬ 
stract,” but said he should support it just as far as it formed 
a part of the constitution, and claimed that the Democracy of 
Iowa took their stand against the Wilmot Proviso during the 
Mexican War and had maintained that position ever since. 
He professed himself a warm 46 friend of the admission of 
California ” and 44 willing and anxious for the passage of the 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. ii 

fugitive slave bill.” On this last measure he said, “ I can 
answer for my constituents that they are not negro-stealers, 
though they live right on the borders of a slave State. True, 
some of the Missourians did once come with their rifles to a 
certain Quaker settlement after some fugitive slaves and they 
got them.” 

(ist Sess. 31 Cong. p. 1085.) 

Senator Dodge was probably never a stockholder in the 
underground railroad. 

At the first session of the next Congress, Senator Jones 
presented some resolutions of the Iowa Legislature, setting 
forth that, “ there has been a disposition in portions of the 
North and South to set at defiance the compromise measures 
of the previous Congress and that whatever may be the opinion 
of individuals as to said measures, it is the duty of all good 
citizens to carry them out in good faith, seeking their modifi¬ 
cation or repeal, if such should be necessary, in the manner 
contemplated in the constitution and the laws.” 

Senator Jones said he “ was certain the resolution reflected 
the sentiments of the Democratic party and of a small por¬ 
tion of the Whigs of Iowa.” The latter party, however, he 
said had declared for the Wilmot Proviso in county and state 
conventions. Representative Clark in presenting the same 
resolutions in the House said the people of Iowa “ are no 
admirers of the special institutions of the South, but they are 
willing the people of the South should manage their own 
affairs in their own way.” 

(1 Sess. 32 Cong. p. 700.) 

During the debate on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, Senator 
Dodge declared himself a “ sincere believer in the doctrine of 
squatter sovereignty •” characterized the bill as “the noblest 
tribute which has ever yet been offered by the people of the 
United States to the sovereignty of the people;” denounced 
unsparingly abolition sentiments; said that Mr. Sumner “was 
wafted into the Senate upon an abolition tornado, which him¬ 
self, Wendell Phillips and others succeeded in raising against 


12 


Iowa Historical Record. 


the compromise measures;” and claimed that, but for the feel¬ 
ing excited by abolitionism, emancipation measures would be 
set on foot in some of the Southern States. He also said that 
he and his colleague (Jones), and Senator Sturgeon, of Penn¬ 
sylvania, were the only three Senators from free states who 
voted for the fugitive slave law. “ Since then,” said he, “ my 
colleague has been returned to this body without an objection, 
so far as I have ever heard, from either Democrat or Whig, 
on account of the votes to which I have referred.” 

(i Sess. 33 Cong., App. pp. 376-382.) 

In the House Mr. Henn, the Democratic member, in the 
course of a speech in favor of the bill said that the Iowa 
Whigs had three times coalesced with the Abolitionists, and 
at their last convention had nominated state officers who 
were subsequently endorsed by the Abolition convention as 
“ sound.” 

(1 Sess. 33 Cong., App. p. 885, seq. 

Mr. Cook, the Whig representative, published a speech in 
opposition to the bill which he had intended to give in the 
House. In this he says, that “the people of Iowa without 
distinction of party were prompt to endorse and acquiesce in 
the compromise measures of 1850, regarding them as a final 
settlement of the subject.” 

(1 Sess. 34 Cong., App. p. 669, seq.) 

So far as I have been able to discover this was the first 
utterance of Whig sentiments on these questions from any 
Iowa congressman. But in 1856, Senator Harlan made a 
long speech on the bill to authorize the people of Kansas to 
form a constitution and state government in which he argues 
affirmatively two questions. First: Has Congress power to 
exclude slavery from the territories? Second: Ought this 
power to be exercised in the organization of territorial gov¬ 
ernments where slavery did not previously exist? 

• (1 Sess. 34, Cong. App., p. 270, seq.) 

Senator Jones replying to this speech, asserts that Senator 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. 


13 


Harlan’s sentiments were not those of a majority of the peo¬ 
ple of Iowa. 

(App. p. 405, seq.) 

Perhaps he was right, but if so, either the sentiments of 
the people underwent a rapid change, or their State Legisla¬ 
ture misrepresented their views, for in the following winter 
Congress received a joint resolution of the Iowa Legislature 
from which I make the following extracts: 

Whereas, under the Constitution of the United States, 
freedom is national and slavery is sectional; believing that 
the peace, welfare, and honor of the country imperiously 
require that our national domain shall be preserved free for 
free homes for free men; and believing it to have been the 
policy of our fathers, dictated by reason and exalted patri¬ 
otism, to inhibit the extension of slavery and make freedom 
the law of our national progress. Therefore, 

Resolved, That we are unqualifiedly opposed to the further 
extension of slavery within the jurisdiction or by the sanction 
of the general government, and insist that Congress shall 
exert all constitutional power to preserve our national terri¬ 
tory free.” 

(House Doc. No 38, 3 Sess. 34 Cong.) 

The probability is that the popular views in Iowa, as else¬ 
where, were undergoing a change, for up to the Thirty-third 
Congress the Iowa delegation in both houses was Democratic 
—their views on the questions dividing tfre parties being per¬ 
haps sufficiently indicated by the citations previously made. 
In the Thirty-third Congress one Whig Representative appears, 
from which time other changes in the delegation are made 
till the Thirty-sixth Congress, in which all the Congressmen 
from the state were Republican. In the second session of 
this Congress, February 15, 1861, Mr. Vandever made a long 
speech in the House on the state of the Union, the occasion 
being the report of a committee on the Crittenden resolutions. 

(2nd Sess. 36 Con., p. 939, seq). 

In this speech he argued against giving further guarantees 


Iowa Historical Record. 


x 4 

for the protection of slavery in the slave states, said the ques¬ 
tion of all other questions to be settled was the right of seces¬ 
sion and appealing to history for evidence of the assertion 
declared that, “ every particle of sovereignty any one of the 
original thirteen states has was derived through the Union 
and from no other source.” 

All through the war period, we find the members from Iowa 
supporting the measures for arming and emancipating the 
negroes. In the second session of the Thirty-seventh Con¬ 
gress both Senator Grimes (p. 1650, seq.) and Senator Har¬ 
lan (App. p. 315, seq.), and in the third session Mr. Wilson 
(p. 680, seq.) made earnest pleas for the former measures. 
From Mr. Wilson’s speech we learn that at the previous elec¬ 
tion Iowa supported the administration by a larger Republican 
majority than ever before, and Senator Grimes declares that, 
“ the northwestern states will submit to no temporizing or 
compromising policy.” 

Senator Harlan in the course of his remarks made what 
seems a rather original argument for emancipation. It was 
in substance this: 44 The monarchies of Europe have never 
had any hearty friendship for the Republic and would be glad 
of any pretext for helping on its destruction. But they can 
not interfere with a pretext that will meet the approval of the 
moral sense of mankind.” 44 They may induce the rebel 
states to adopt an act of emancipation as a condition of recog¬ 
nition. They can then exhibit the North to the world as per¬ 
sistent prosecutors of a war for dominion and against the 
interests of humanity.” 

During the same session of Congress (p. 1357, seq) speak¬ 
ing of the bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia 
he replied with much ability to those Senators who feared 
amalgamation or wholesale murder as a result of the measure. 

In the third session of the Thirty-seventh Congress, Sena¬ 
tor Grimes told the Senate what the people of Iowa thought 
of the Emancipation proclamation in the following words: 
44 It came to us while I was canvassing the state preceding 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. 


15 


the last October election, and it was hailed by loyal men of 
all parties who were anxious to put down the rebellion * * 

* * as one of the most efficient means of bringing it to a 

successful conclusion.” 

But while, so far as I can discover from the records, Iowa 
Congressmen agreed in favoring emancipation measures, there 
was division among them on the question of negro suffrage. 
In the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress (pp. 222- 
242) Mr. Grinnell, Mr. Price, and Mr. Wilson argued in favor 
of the bill providing for negro suffrage in the District of 
Columbia, while Mr. Kasson made a long speech opposing 
the bill because it did not exclude rebels from voting, because 
he wanted an intelligence qualification, and because it made no 
provisions for registration. 

From the debate between him and Mr. Price, I gather that 
at the previous election for Governor in Iowa, negro suffrage 
was an issue, and that the Democrats put up Col. Thos. H. 
Benton, Jr., a Republican opposed to the measure, who was 
defeated, though the Republican majority was cut down from 
40,000 to 16,000. It also appears that at a meeting of Dav¬ 
enport citizens resolutions were passed endorsing all the Iowa 
delegation except Mr. Kasson. He, however, charged that 
the majority in Scott county, previously the banner county, 
was cut down from twelve hundred to fifty or sixty, appa¬ 
rently on this issue. 

Before passing on the reconstruction period, I cannot for¬ 
bear to quote a eulogy on Iowa troops which I find in the rec¬ 
ords although it hardly comes within the scope of this paper. 
It is to be found in a speech of Senator Harlan’s on the battle 
of Pittsburgh Landing. 

(2 Sess., 37 Cong., p. 2036.) 

He was criticising Gen. Grant for his conduct at that battle, 
declaring that Iowa troops had no confidence in his fitness to 
command—the whole passage is curious reading when one 
remembers the enthusiastic admiration of Iowa and Iowa 
soldiers for the general in later years—and in the course of 


16 Iowa Historical Record. 

his remarks he requested the secretary to read a paragraph 
from the St. Louis News, from which I quote the following 
sentences: 

“ Iowa is a young State, but it is the home of heroes. With 
the present war she has begun a war history that yields in 
splendor and honor to that of no state in the Union, and no 
country on the globe. * * * * Her soldiers are as 

modest as they are brave. * * * * But when the 
storm of blood begins they are the guiding and governing 
heroes of the tempest. * * * * When a perilous 

assault is to be made, somehow or other, there is always an 
Iowa regiment or the wasted shadow of an Iowa regiment to 
lead it. * * * * All our western troops have been 

heroes, but the Iowa troops have been heroes among heroes. 
The Iowa First, Iowa Second, Iowa Fourth, and Iowa Seventh, 
are bodies of men who would have given additional luster 
even to Thermopylae, Marathon, Austerlitz, or Wagram, and 
all Americans may be proud of Iowa.” 

From the debates on the reconstruction measures numerous 
citations might be made to show that Senators and Represen¬ 
tatives from Iowa were opposed to receiving the rebel states 
without guarantees of their future loyalty and good faith in 
carrying out the Constitutional Amendments. But it is perhaps 
more important to note their views on the much discussed 
question of the exact status of the South after the secession 
acts. As early as the second session of the Thirty-seventh 
Congress in his speech on the militia bill (App. p. 315, seq.) 
previously alluded to, Senator Harlan argued that states could 
cease to exist “ either through the madness of their own peo¬ 
ple or in consequence of the superior strength of their ene¬ 
mies,” citing as examples Sparta, Judea, Scotland, and Poland ; 
said that the methods employed in suppressing insurrection 
assumed that the seceded states were no longer states, and 
they therefore must either be held and governed as territories, 
or their independence must be acknowledged. In his opinion, 
of course, the former method should be followed. Later on, 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. 


i7 


in the second session of the Fortieth Congress (p. 1072, seq) 
he supported the same view and also held that the govern¬ 
ments formed under President Johnson’s proclamation of 
March, 1865, were void, not having been made “in pursu¬ 
ance of any law, state or national, statutory or constitutional,” 
and not being “ the fruits of the voluntary action of the peo¬ 
ple of these states.” He thought, however, that such illegal¬ 
ities and informalities might be remedied by act of Congress. 

Mr. Loughridge also, in the second session of the Forty- 
first Congress (App. p. 28), said the people of the rebellious 
states even during the war were not out of the Union but out 
of their proper practical relations, that they had forfeited their 
rights, and that Congress had the power to make any law 
necessary to guarantee a republican form of government in 
those states. 

At the same session (p. 441, seq.) Mr. Palmer spoke of 
“the failure to discriminate between the rights of a state 
which h is by its voluntary crimes forfeited its equality of pre¬ 
rogative in the Union and a state which has not,” as “ a fun¬ 
damental error.” 

So far as I am able to learn from the records, there was 
substantial agreement among the Iowa members on the main 
questions of reconstruction with some differences on matters 
of detail. Mr. Kasson, for example, believed that Congress 
had no right to establish martial law except where insurrec¬ 
tion still existed. 

(2 Sess., 39 Cong., p. 1105.) 

The question of impeaching President Johnson occupies 
much of the time of the Fortieth Congress. Mr. James F. 
Wilson was one of the House Committee but did not favor 
the majority report, and made a speech Dec. 6, 1867, (App. 
p. 62, seq.) in which he argued at some length against some 
of the points made in the report. By the 24th of February, 
however (p. 1386, seq.), he became convinced that the case 
was clear through the violation of the tenure of office act. 
During the same month also, Mr. Allison, Mr. Loughridge, 


i8 


Iowa Historical Record. 


and Mr. Price made speeches favoring the impeachment. 
(App. pp, 201, seq., 203, seq., 222, seq.) But on the trial of 
the case in the Senate Senator Grimes rendered his opinion 
that the President had not been guilty of an impeachable 
offense in either of the articles preferred by the House and, 
widely as he differed from his political views and measures, 
he could not be influenced by that fact in his vote; while Sen¬ 
ator Harlan found that the acts of the president “ were a clear 
violation both of the constitution and of the law * * * per¬ 

formed deliberately and wilfully for the purpose of defeating 
the latter.” 

When the presidential election of 1876 was in dispute, Mr. 
McCrary, of Iowa, was a member of the committee that 
reported in favor of an Electoral Commission, and made a 
long speech for the measure. 

(2 Sess., 44 Cong., pp. 932-935. 

Mr. Pratt, however, opposed it (p. 1037) as creating a 
tribunal unknown to the constitution. He with Mr. Kasson 
and Mr. Tufts voted against it. Some expressions of opinion 
from the people of the state also found their way into the 
records. Representative Sampson in speaking on the bill 
says, “I have regretted to find that they [the Iowa people] 
were not more earnestly in favor of this measure; but the last 
word I received, a telegram on yesterday, has the true ring. It 
was “ Hold the fort! Country before party! The people will 
sustain a peaceful solution! This was signed by men whose 
Republicanism is as strong and pure as exists in that Repub¬ 
lican state which gave to Mr. Hayes whom we hope to see 
President by fair and righteous means, nearly 60,000 majority.” 

On the other hand, shortly after the passage of the bill, 
Senator Wright received and presented in the Senate the 
protest of Samuel Merrill and about one hundred other citi¬ 
zens of Des Moines. In doing so he said he thought they 
misapprehended the purport and scope of the act, and that he 
knew when he voted for it that the Republicans of Iowa 
would at first be almost unanimously opposed to the measure, 
since they believed there could be but one honest result. 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. 


r 9 


The questions thus far considered were long ago settled so 
far as Congressional action could settle them. There remain 
others which are still to some extent “ burning questions,” on 
which I have consulted the records down to the Forty-eighth 
Congress. Most prominent of these is, perhaps, the tariff. 
As early as the third session of the Thirty-fourth Congress, 
resolutions of the Iowa Legislature were presented favoring 
the repeal of the duty on iron, on account of the expense of 
building railroads and the fact that the national revenue ex¬ 
ceeded expenses. 

(House Mis. Doc. No. 5r.) 

In the first session of the Thirty-sixth Congress (p. 2020, 
seq.) Mr. Curtis said that he wanted protection afforded busi¬ 
ness enterprises that would develop the latent resources of 
Iowa, and in the next Congress he objected to a bill for rais¬ 
ing revenue by duty on such articles as tea, coffee, and coarse 
sugar, on the ground that it would impose much heavier bur¬ 
dens on the people of the northwest than of other sections, and 
declared that the tax would not be sustained by the country. 
(1st Sess. 37 Cong. p. 175.) 

In the next Congress Mr. Grinnell argued for a protective 
tariff, and said that if he understood the western states they 
did not intend in future simply to raise grain and send it to 
Europe, but meant “to build up a noble rivalry between the 
Mississippi and the Merrimac.” 

(1st Sess. 38 Cong., p. 2684, seq.) 

It was in the second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress how¬ 
ever, that Iowa Congressmen first made any extensive remarks 
on this subject. A bill for providing increased revenue from 
imports being under consideration Senator Grimes made a 
long speech in opposition to it. (p. 696, seq.) Evidently 
times change and opinions with them, for some passages in 
this speech would have been excellent campaign literature for 
Democrats to circulate with President Cleveland’s free trade 
message. I quote a few sentences: “Two or three large 
manufacturing interests in the country, not satisfied with the 


20 


Iowa Historical Record. 


enormous profits they have realized during the last six years 
are determined at whatever hazard to put more money in their 
pockets; and to this end they have persuaded some and co¬ 
erced other manufacturing interests to unite with them in a 
great combination demand for what they call protection to 
American labor, but what some others call robbery of the 
American laborer and agriculturist. * * * * Mr. Presi¬ 

dent, this mad-dog cry of c free trade and British gold ’ passes 
by me like the idle wind. * * * * I have known noth¬ 

ing so alarming in the whole history of legislation in this coun¬ 
try as the methods that have been adopted to secure the pas¬ 
sage of this bill. The people have not asked for it * * * 

it is solely demanded by the manufacturers of iron and a few 
wool agriculturists and speculators who call themselves the 
wool-growers of the country.” Later in the same day Sena¬ 
tor Kirkwood said he had listened with interest to the remarks 
of Senator Grimes, but had not determined how he should 
vote. He thought the tendency of the bill was to tax every¬ 
thing the people of Iowa used and to afford very little protec¬ 
tion to anything they produced. It appears that he finally 
voted with Senator Grimes against the bill and said that he 
did so because he thought the tariff too high, not because he 
was opposed to a proper protection of manufacturing interests. 

The remarks of the Representatives (pp. 1540-1657) are 
not quite so definite as those of the Senators, but they seemed 
to consider the bill, except in the matter of wool, more favora¬ 
ble to the East than to the West. 

Mr. Grinnell made a speech (App. p. 147) favoring the pro¬ 
tection of “ chosen industries,” especial^ wool. 

Concerning the tax on tea and coffee, Mr. Loughridge said 
(2 Sess, 41 Cong. p. 2355 seq.) that it was a war tax which 
might be entirely abolished;that it was a -per capita tax, taxing 
the poor man more than the rich one. Again (p. 2381) he 
says, “my own impression is that whatever reduction there 
may be of taxes will be in favor of the wealth of the country 
and of capital instead of in favor of the poor man and in the 
interest of labor.” 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. 


21 


During the same session of Congress, Mr. Allison made a 
long speech (App. p. 190 seq.) which he probably would be 
unwilling to subscribe to to-day, so true is it that thinking men 
are forced at times bv argument, by the logic of events, or by 
some subtler agency to change their views. In this he ex¬ 
pressed the opinion that generally the tariff adds to the cost of 
manufactured articles, said the tariff of ’46, though confessedly 
a tariff for revenue was so far as regards all the great interests 
of the country as perfect a tariff as we have ever had, and 
proposed a reduction of twenty per cent on all the leading 
articles. He also said the duty on wool and woolens though 
not an intentional fraud acted as a fraud on the great body of 
the people. As to the effeet of high duties, he said, “ I warn 
those who so pertinaciously insist on a retention of these high 
duties upon necessary articles that they only hasten the time 
when a more radical change will be made in our tariff laws.” 
Again, (p. 233) “I say it is an injustice to the great body of 
the people for the manufacturers * * * * * * to insist upon 
a continuance of these exorbitant rates of duty and to denounce 
men who are against them as in favor of free trade, when the 
gentleman knows as do all those men that such a thing as free 
trade is impossible in this country.” 

Still another Iowa man, Mr. Cotton, argued against a tariff 
for protection, (2nd. Sess. 42nd. Cong. p. 1914 seq.) and said 
that the requests of memorialists praying for it, were ‘‘nothing 
less than requests that Congress should aid them to obtain 
better prices than they otherwise could,” and he did not believe 
manufacturers who merited success needed any such rates. 

In the Forty-third Congress Mr. Allison and Mr. Kasson 
favored a duty on flax in the interests of western farmers. 

(1st. Sess. 43d. Cong. pp. 4368 and 437 °-) 

They said under the stimulus of such a duty the farmers 
formerly began its culture, but Congress suddenly cut off the 
duty, since which it had been raised only for seed. Their 
claim was that it was simple justice to the farmers to restore 
the duty. Mr. Kasson said (p. 5402) that he had letters 


22 


Iowa Historical Record. 


showing that nearly ninety flax-mills went out of existence in 
consequence of its being placed on the free list. On the gen¬ 
eral subject of the tariff Mr. Kasson expressed himself as 
follows: “My whole study in the adjustment of the tariff 
question is so to arrange it that we do not prohibit the intro¬ 
duction of any article and do not prohibit the manufacture in 
America of that same article if it is within our power to manu¬ 
facture it.” (p. 4318.) 

In the first session of the Forty-seventh Congress he made 
a long speech favoring protection but said he thought there 
was common consent that there should be revision. He ex¬ 
pressed the opinion, however, that the politicians in Congress, 
with rare exceptions, had not sufficient practical acquaintance 
with the industrial interests of the country to deal with the 
question properly, and that a commission of experts was de¬ 
sirable. (pp. 2348-2355.) 

In the same Congress, Mr. Carpenter expressed hinself as 
opposed to sudden or radical changes in the system under 
which industries had grown prosperous, (p. 2741.) 

Mr. Dering also spoke on the subject, saying that he believed 
in “giving reasonable protection to American productions and 
in encouraging and sustaining our home industries especially 
those which furnish employment for labor and tend to reduce 
prices through an increase in the supply of manufactured 
articles, but he did not “believe in running mad on protection,” 
thought the iron interest had been too exacting, and that any 
considerable tax on fence wire and lumber which were indis¬ 
pensable to western farmers, would be a discrimination in 
favor of the few against the many, and said he should vote to 
put them and sugar very nearly on the free list. 

Another important and much discussed question is the Cur¬ 
rency. The members from Iowa with substantial unanimity 
favored the redemption of the public debt in coin, the resump¬ 
tion of specie payment as rapidly as might be safely done with 
due regard to the business interests of the country, and the 
issue of nothing but honest money. In the third session cf 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. 


23 


the Fortieth Congress, Mr. Price put himself on record as 
supporting the bill to strengthen the public credit and to pledge 
the faith of the United States for the redemption of the notes 
in coin. (p. 1882.) 

Mr. Wright in the Forty-second Congress, (3d. Sess. p. 
1105) and Mr. Loughridge in the Forty-third, (1st. Sess. App. 
p. 215 seq.) expressed themselves as believing that the country 
needed more money rather than contraction, and the latter 
gentleman thought a sufficient circulation would be the speed¬ 
iest road to specie resumption and the best guarantee of the 
public credit. 

Mr. Kasson said he had a letter from a farmer in his district 
“recommending him not to vote for a single measure looking 
to the depreciation of paper,” and he expressed himself strongly 
in the same direction. 

(43 Cong. 1st. Sess. pp. 2965-2967.) 

Mr. Cotton said he would “not favor having the Government 
engage in any financial operations which he would condemn 
as impolitic in an individual,” * * * “would not have the 
Government break any of its pledges,” and again, “in legis¬ 
lating upon the currency nothing should be done to impair its 
credit.” He was “opposed to any severe measures to bring 
about specie resumption” but thought “we should face steadily 
in that direction.” 

(43 Cong. 1st. Sess. pp. 2590-2593.) 

Mr. Sampson, while thinking the best possible plan for 
resumption had perhaps not been adopted, declared that re¬ 
sumption was not the cause of hard times, but that they were 
rather due to the “ enormous indebtedness, national, state, 
municipal, corporate, and individual,” to speculation, extrava¬ 
gance, and misdirection of energies, all growing out of the 
war. The remedy he proposed was “rigid public and private 
economy, lightening taxation as much as possible, encourage¬ 
ment and protection to useful and legitimate employment of 
both labor and capital, very gradual and steady reduction of 
indebtedness * * * * and an abandonment of the theory that 


Iowa Historical Record. 


2 4 

we can make absolute money out of paper that will wipe away 
our national indebtedness.” 

(ist. Sess. 45 Cong. pp. 498-500.) 

At the same session, Mr. Burdick opposed the repeal of the 
resumption act (App. p. 49 seq.) though he was willing to 
vote for an extension of time. In his view the cause of hard 
times was that money did not circulate freely enough, as busi¬ 
ness men being timid were contracting their business. 

Mr. Cummings (App. p. 7) took a similar view and thought 
it best to set vigorously about the coinage of silver and to 
postpone action upon the date of resumption. 

Mr. Price argued that contraction of the currency had not 
arisen from resumption but from excessive taxation of the 
national banks, and hoped Congress would keep its promise 
of resumption, (pp. 275-280.) 

During the third session of the same Congress (p. 178S) 
he endorsed remarks made by Mr. Garfield to the effect that 
if Representatives had sense and honesty enough to let the 
currency alone we should be in a better condition financially 
than by any other measures. 

Mr. Cummings also, speaking in favor of the resumption 
policy of the Republican party and against “fiat money” thought 
it best to cease tinkering with the currency. 

When the question of remonetization of silver was discussed 
in the second session of the Forty-fifth Congress, Senator 
Allison, and Representatives Burdick, Price, and Dering all 
spoke in favor of the measure, and all denounced in unmistak¬ 
able terms the coinage of silver dollars of less value than gold 
dollars. 

(Allison pp. 175 and 1055 seq., Burdick App. p. 40, 
Price pp. 344-348, Dering pp. 589-592. 

In the next Congress Senator Kirkwood speaking of the 
passage of the Allison bill, said, “the country owes a great 
deal to him for his sound sense and practical sagacity and good 
statemanship.” (On resumption, etc.) 

A different note was struck in the First Session of the Forty- 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. 


25 


sixth Congress by Representative Weaver. He said that the 
act of 1869 preventing the payment of bonds in greenbacks 
was a public crime against labor. He favored it at the time 
being in the condition of Saul on his way to Tarsus, but had 
gathered light since. He said that silver was demonetized in 
the interests of capital, and that the resumption act was 
another step in the great scheme, “It was one of the trinity 
of infamies,” and was passed for the purpose of increasing the 
bonded debt. And the plea of the Republican party that the 
Government ought to pay its honest debts was hypocrisy, 
(pp. 1197-1202.) 

It is always difficult to determine just when and how the 
idea of legislation on any given subject originated. I cannot 
therefore assert positively that the credit of inaugurating the 
movement for the regulation of inter-state commerce belongs 
to Iowa or Iowa statesmen. It is, however, a fact that the 
matter was brought to the notice of Congress by Iowa men 
long before any definite action was taken. Representative 
Walden during the Third Session of the Forty-second Con¬ 
gress presented a joint resolution of the Iowa Legislature 
favoring Congressional action to correct alleged oppression 
of railroads in charging exorbitant rates. He supported the 
resolutions in an earnest speech saying that the protection of 
western farmers against the encroachments of railroads had 
become an imperative duty. (App. p. 63 seq.) 

A few days later he spoke again on the subject, charging 
that the railroads discriminated against Iowa in favor of 
Chicago and eastern points and insisted that reform could not 
be too thorough or too speedy, (pp. 1100 and 1101. ) 

Early in the next Congress Mr. Loughridge introduced a 
bill which was referred to the Committee on Railroads and 
Canals. Evidently he was not satisfied that it was not promptly 
acted upon for a few weeks later he made a speech urging 
the matter upon the attention of Congress. He said there 
was no question of more importance than that of cheap trans¬ 
portation, but that the farmers of the west had suffered for 


2 6 


Iowa Historical Record. 


years from the extortions of railroad companies and that “the 
mutterings and rumblings of popular discontent * * * * * 

among the people of the great Northwest were but the pre¬ 
lude of the coming storm * * * * the just complaints 

of the laboring class * * * men who love their country 

and have given freely of blood and treasure to save this Gov¬ 
ernment; men who will ask nothing but what is right, and who 
will not always submit to what is wrong. 

(43 Cong. 1st. Sess. App. p. 6 seq.) 

Mr. McCrary was a member of the Committee and it may 
possibly have been largely due to his exertions that a bill was 
finally reported. At least he made the report and argued at 
length, March 3, 1874, Congress, had the right to regulate 
the matter and that it was expedient to do so. 

,(p P . 1941-1947.) 

Messrs. Wilson, Pratt, and Cotton also made speeches in 
support of the measure. 

(pp. 2044-2049, 2144-2146, 2422-2425.) 

Mr. Wilson thought the solution of the question was looked 
for “with an interest second only lo that which attaches to the 
question of human rights,” and that the excessive rates charged 
for transportation had much to do with the depressed financial 
condition of the country. During the first session of the 
Forty-fourth Congress he spoke again (App. p. 278 seq.) 
complaining that Congress had not acted fairly in this matter, 
having failed to take any positive action. 

The matter still dragged along, and Mr. McDill, in the 
Forty-seventh Congress (1st. Sess. p. 3083) said he was sur¬ 
prised that there should be any hesitation in taking some 
action, in view of the facts that there was such general com¬ 
plaint and that there could be so little danger in intrusting the 
matter to a Commission properly constituted. 

These references cover the more important speeches made 
by Iowa men on the subject and are sufficient to show their 
urgency to obtain Congressional action. 

Some other subjects, as for instance Civil Service Reform, 


Some Fragments of Iowa History. 


27 


cannot be adequately treated without carrying the investigation 
to a later date than I had proposed to do in this paper. 

The above survey, imperfect as it is, does not, I feel sure, 
misrepresent the views of Iowa members on any of the 
subjects taken up. Much fuller quotations might of course 
have been made at every point. Enough, however, have been 
given to show that Iowa has been represented by men who 
were not afraid to say plainly what they thought on national 
issues and often by those who could speak with vigor and 
ability. Indeed a careful reading of all the speeches must 
convince one that Iowa has no reason to be ashamed of her 
Congressional record as compared with that of other states.* 


*The Constitution had been adopted bv the Convention. A majority of the 
delegates composing that Convention were like myself members of the Demo¬ 
cratic party and the constitution in its provisions, save its boundery was entirely 
acceptable to the party leaders as well as rank and file. The office holders of 
that period and many who hoped to become such in the new state should the 
constitution be adopted, were earnest in the advocacy of its adoption by the 
people. The provision regarding the boundary however, which cut us off from 
M issouri River was objectionable to all the people. The opposition to this adop¬ 
tion was conceived and organized at Burlington. The late Lieut. Governor, 
Enoch W. Eastman, then a young lawyer and recently from the East was the 
originator of the Scheme which led to its rejection, lie associated with him 
actively Captain Mills, who lost his life in the Mexican War and who like 
himself was a young and talented attorney of Burlington. The Hon. Shepherd 
Laffler, also of Burlington who had presided over the convention lent his aid 
in a limited manner for the same purpose. 

The first two agreed to stump (as it was termed) the Territory, but finding 
they had an elephant on their hands, they invited my co-operation, assigning 
to me what was known as the second judicial district of the Territory, there 
being three districts at that time. I entered actively upon the work a» did my 
associates. Our principal and leading argument against the adoption of the 
instrument was of course the boundry question, which we used to a good 
advantage and, as the result showed, successfully. 1 he Constitution was re¬ 
jected by the people by a majority vote of 421 in a total vote of 14,8915 the 
election having occured on “The First Monday in April next” which from the 
perpetual almanac I find to have been the 7th day of April, iS-} 5 > an< ^ n °t the 
4th day of August, as printed in the Census of Iowa, page 410 of 1SS5. 
Extract from letter of Hon. T. 6'. Parvin to President J. L. Pickard of the 
State Historical Society. 




I - •. 








• A 



























- , ’ ... * 





• : ;‘ ‘ . 






* ... 

«. ' ‘ • . v 

* 

« .■ . • 






































































• > 








“ 




* 


















. 




• » 





















































. * i 




































































































































